The discussion is now closed.

As the target date for the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) approaches, a number of processes have been put in place to seek inputs from country, regional and global levels, into the “Post-2015 Development Agenda and Framework”. For more background information click here.

This is your opportunity to help identify the actions, goals, targets and indicators needed to achieve food and nutrition security, and the eradication of hunger, in a post-2015 world. Many food security and nutrition policies, strategies and action plans have been written over the past number of years. Challenges and opportunities towards achieving food and nutrition security in a sustainable way have been identified, and many countries are making good progress. Nevertheless, close to 870 million people around the world remain undernourished and do not have access to a healthy diet. It is time for everyone to take urgent action – in a concerted manner – and to elaborate a new development agenda around lasting concerns of hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition.

The outcome of this e-consultation, together with the proposed CFS consultation, will feed into the high level experts consultation to be hosted by the Government of Spain in March 2013.

Ultimately, your contributions will feed into the UN General Assembly discussions beginning September 2013 for the elaboration of an agreed post 2015 global development agenda.

E-Consultation: next four weeks

Over the next four weeks, FAO and WFP will facilitate this e-consultation in drawing on the widest possible group of stakeholders and interested parties on how best to address hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition at all levels, and to seek your inputs on the elaboration of a new agenda for action beyond the current MDG framework.

We also invite you to submit papers, findings, or on-going work on the topic of hunger, food and nutrition security.

We seek your inputs on the following three themes:

Theme 1

(i) What do you see as the key lessons learned during the current Millennium Development Goals (MDG) Framework (1990-2015), in particular in relation to the MDGs of relevance to hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition?

(ii) What do you consider the main challenges and opportunities towards achieving food and nutrition security in the coming years?

Theme 2

What works best? Drawing on existing knowledge, please tell us how we should go about addressing the hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition challenges head on. Provide us with your own experiences and insights. For example, how important are questions of improved governance, rights-based approaches, accountability and political commitment in achieving food and nutrition security?

Furthermore, how could we best draw upon current initiatives, including the Zero Hunger Challenge, launched by the UN Secretary General at the Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development (www.zerohungerchallenge.org), and the Global Strategic Framework for Food Security and Nutrition elaborated by the CFS?

Theme 3

For the Post-2015 Global Development Framework to be complete, global (and regional or national) objectives, targets and indicators will be identified towards tackling hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition. A set of objectives has been put forward by the UN Secretary-General under Zero Hunger Challenge (ZHC):

100% access to adequate food all year round

Zero stunted children less than 2 years old

All food systems are sustainable

100% increase in smallholder productivity and income

Zero loss or waste of food.

Please provide us with your feedback on the above list of objectives – or provide your own proposals. Should some objectives be country-specific, or regional, rather than global? Should the objectives be time-bound?

Contribution received:

The issue of food security cannot be handled as a single entity. Borrowing a leaf from Africa, Nigeria is a case study: greater population of the masses suffer abject hunger occasioned by unemployment, bad government, natural disasters, crisis, terrorism etc just to be precise, and all this adversely affect the actualization of the MDGs. In Africa, where people are more prone to famine and starvation, people result in eating just anything to cushion the debilitating effect of hunger, lots of malnourished people litter many streets in several African countries.

In my many years social work in tropical Africa on malaria, I discovered that more people are more susceptible to malaria attack due to poor feeding situations and people rarely develop to full stature due to poor feeding. It is quite appalling that even in the presence of vast arable land in tropical Africa, Agricultural practices still suffer due to lack of support from Various African government and other Development partners. I so much believe that if grand mechanized farming is introduced in Africa, the issue of global food security will be achieved.

I am working on a thesis on the legal protection of the right to adequate food in Spain. I found this issue very interesting because almost nothing has been written about hunger in developed countries. Unfortunately, some European countries have seen their poverty rates dramatically increased due to the current economic crisis. Spain, with the highest unemployment rate in the whole European Union, is a good example.

I am concious that, in comparison with the situation of other countries, the European nations have more resources, but the figures are there and the situation won't get better in the short term.

In conclusion, I propose to draw attention to the situation of some developed countries in order to make the corresponding goverments to consider the social impact of the economic measures they are currently adopting (cutting social benefits, pensions, etc.)

I think the issue of food security in Africa has been driven from the point of focus because now a days African farmers are no longer producting foods to sustain their nations, but now food is being produces just for weekly meals making it difficult to sustain generations however, this can only be achieved if we can start to teach people how to farm for future and donors aids should also be able to support these proceses to encourage continuaty.

The discussions, debates and policy making process with regard to food security around the world are largely centred on cereals, pulses and meats. Food policy is largely terrestrial oriented. This is primarily due to the fact that they account for the larger source of calories needed for daily human consumption. Little is said about fish – even in countries where fish is central to people’s diets, irrespective of their income levels and social status. This is unfortunate to say the least. The pivotal role which fish can play in direct food security is not adequately recognised. Just as fish is not directly visible to fishers as it lives and grows, it also seems to be only on the periphery of policy makers’ concerns. Often it is even a ‘policy blind spot’!

In the context of hunger -- and obesity -- the role of fish as a wholesome and inexpensive food source for achieving food security merits serious consideration.

Humans cannot live by fish alone. But today there is growing evidence that small quantities of fish in human diets can make the crucial differences in early brain development; help development of bone and muscle tissue; ensure that blindness is prevented; prevent heart attacks and cancer and also mitigate the effects of HIV/AIDS. Fish certainly contributes to nutritional security.

Where there are aquatic resources, there fish can be found naturally. Fish can also be easily cultured in different aquatic milieu. In rivers, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, floodplains, coastal waters and the open sea – fish and other edible aquatic organisms and plants are in plentiful supply.

Most developing countries are blessed with a large share of such aquatic resources making the potential for development of fisheries a natural choice. With small, dedicated and ‘quality-investments’ of time and money, the returns in the form of fish can be substantial. Thus, contrary to popular notions, the potential for harvesting and growing fish and making a direct contribution to increasing food supply, decreasing hunger and contributing to food security is considerable.

In this context, it is important to highlight that fish is not a homogenous product. Species diversity, and consequently physical form, is vast and manifold. However, the common feature of all fish species pertain to their relatively similar nutritional quality – i.e. the percentage of protein, fats, minerals, vitamins which one can obtain from a unit quantity of fish.

Therefore, if the concern is with fulfilling nutritional needs of the hungry, then an undue pre-occupation with ‘white flesh’ fish or species such as shrimp needs to be replaced with active publicity for more ‘small, skinny, oily’ species. These fish can be eaten whole or mixed with the staples such as rice, wheat, maize, sorghum, cassava and banana.

There are also indirect ways of achieving food security by the creation of employment and income earning possibilities in fishery related activities. When people have creative work opportunities and adequate income, they are in a position to make informed choices about their food.

In many developing countries the possibilities for raising the employment-intensity in fisheries is high. In several countries there are many small and medium sized water bodies into which fish can be introduced – if it has not already been done. If people in the rural areas are provided the training, appropriate fishing equipment, or credit to buy them, they can undertake fishing and earn a livelihood.

Global estimates suggest that for every job in the harvesting of fish, there are three or four created in the upstream activities of processing and marketing. For example, in many sub-Saharan countries, where hunger and food insecurity abound, just a minimal improvement in the road infrastructure and provision of labour intensive or animal drawn transportation vehicles (cycles, carts etc.) will vastly improve the scope for operating a distribution network for fish into the neighbouring hinterlands. The same can also be said about processing methods like drying and smoking which are favoured by poorer African consumers. Such choices provide jobs for hundreds and fish at affordable prices for thousands.

Though the potentials are vast, the concrete reality of fish in many developing countries today leaves much to be desired. In many countries, the crisis of the economy and the need for quick foreign exchange has resulted in fish exports becoming an easy way to earn foreign exchange. The domestic supply shortages have resulted in a market situation which ‘priced-out the poor’. Some of the highest rates of malnutrition, particularly among children and mothers, have been reported from countries which export fish. Examples abound from Latin America, Africa and South Asia. Policies to ensure that the compulsions of international trade do not create domestic hunger must be enacted.

So, wherever and whenever there is a discussion on hunger, food and food security we need to check out to see that the rightful role of fish is included.

What works best? Drawing on existing knowledge, please tell us how we should go about addressing the hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition challenges head on.

Combined issues are population, poverty and local knowledge/technology. I do not want to give examples or lesson learned, because these are an enigmatic issues that compound socio-cultura-political isses. In order the poor to be able to eat (have jobs) people should be empowered in socio-economi-political aspects.

Population - how to control population growth, how to provide knowledge and skills to the low income? Unless there is a goodwill and political justice there will be no improvement. understanding local knowledge and issues are paramountly more important than simply asking. It must relate to the people's culture. What education should relevant to certain type of community? This is not at all a charity endeavor. How we boost moral and confidence to the poor to rely on themselves based on their norms and values, while the political authorities support the need of the common? Are the people constituted by a duality of society (modern/capitalist versus traditional/bazaar)? If they are, does the respective 'society' enjoy equal share in terms resources including life cycle space (urban or rural)?

Poverty - where is the locus of the poverty cycle or trap? Urban and/or rural? What are the opportunities for poor to get access for education and jobs? What is the government strategy to alleviate or reduce it? What the government has done that really affect the poor? In a very micro aspect the poor demand equal shares for space to participate in economic and political engagement. The poor should have equal access to urban services (including transport) and 'business activities'.

Local Knowledge and Technology - we have explore people's knowledge as well as technology they have (emic approach). How we enhance, improve what the people already have? Do not dictate them with an alien knowledge and technology. Cases have shown this impositon will not sustain since they lack of knowledge as well skills to maintain.

In short, knowing yourself to overcome problems and get the most suitable solutions.

Cultural difference is itself a global challenge in an integrated society. This challenge is overcome with the unique global agenda on humanitarian issues such as food security and hunger. So far, great work is done already in the flight against hunger and food security but more is still needed to be done especially in area suffering from these crises like in most parts of Africa and Asia.

Looking at policies both at international and national levels, are so far good but implementation, monitoring and evaluation sectors especially in regional level in areas mostly affected by hunger still a big challenge.

Secondly, international agricultural researchers need to pass on leadership skills to locals by training and working side by side with local groups especially in rural areas. Most areas still find themselves in situation when political leader coordinate agricultural sector. There is a great need for a well skilled and devoted leadership; these challenges still stand as blocks to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to relevant hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition. Working together, we can make the world a better place.

In response to Theme 1, a key challenge is to engage entrepreneurs/experts/organisations from various sectors for addressing the malnutrition problem. The key opportunity here is creating a platform to crowd source innovations to address malnutrition and to provide support for scaling them up. This way we can cross-pollinate ideas across regions as well.

I wish to share this information with you concerning food security and hope it may be of interest and assistance.

Food Security is utterly dependent upon fresh water security. For an adequate supply of fresh water it is vital to understand, protect and regenerate the global fresh water cycle and the natural ecological factors, which maintain it.

There seems to be a severe lack of attention being focused on this matter and feel it to be critically important that it be raised as a vital issue to be dealt with within the global agenda. It is immensely important to recognize the key roles that ecosystems, especially mountains, mountain forests and wetlands play in maintaining fresh water quantity and quality globally. It is important that supportive efforts that protect, sustainably manage and restore these ecosystems are given major focus.

"We recognize the key role that ecosystems play in maintaining water quantity and quality and support actions within the respective national boundaries to protect and sustainably manage these ecosystems." (UNCSD Rio+20 2012 ‘The Future We Want’ Paragraph 122)

Food security is vital for the continuum of humanity and could conceivably be realized if concerted action to protect and secure the worlds fresh water is taken.

If we have made so much progress on the MDGs, then why is the central message after twelve years the same? We are still facing a world with hunger, widening inequalities and continuous destruction of our planet. Instead of jumping into the process of defining new goals we need to analyze why, behind the numbers and statistics of progress, the situation has not changed.

MDGs focus on ends while being silent on the means. The values and principles expressed in the Millenium Declaration were lost in translation and we were left with a set of quick wins in which progress was measured in terms of country averages. The MDGs were defined and implemented in a top-down process and issues of governance, participation and empowerment were insufficiently addressed. World leaders have tried to solve our problems by simply doing more of what caused these problems in the first place. We cannot realistically expect more of this to get us out of it. If we want the next set of goals to change the situation we need to have the courage to make a radical turn in our approach.

Now we are talking about post-MDG! Surprisingly we are not able to grasp with the real issue. Is the UN or the FAO the right platform to deal with hunger.

As we know, it was 27 years ago when, for the first time, world leaders accepted the collective responsibility of the international community to abolish hunger and malnutrition within a decade (Rome United Nations World Food Conference, 1974). The much hyped talks in World Food summits later has not been successful in reducing poverty and thus hunger. SO now, 37 years later, we need a new Global governance strategy for eradicating poverty. We need to first question, Is UN and its agencies capable? Are UN efforts worthwhile? Did UN effectively contribute in improvement of food security? Has a difference been made? If not, what were the reasons? What can be an alternate global Governance strategy for food security?

Then only a viable discussion on post 2015 strategies can hold ground.

This report is about food security, climate change and risk management. Australia has enjoyed an unprecedented level of food security for more than half a century, but there are new uncertainties emerging and it would be unrealistic – if not complacent – to assume the same level of food security will persist simply because of recent history. The project collected data from more than 36 case study organisations (both foreign and local) operating in the Australian food-supply chain, and found that for many businesses, risk management practices require substantial improvement to cope with and exploit the uncertainties that lie ahead. Three risks were identified as major constraints to adaptive capacity of food organisations operating in Australia: risk management practices; an uncertain regulatory environment – itself a result of gaps in risk management; climate change uncertainty and projections about climate change impacts, also related to risk management.

The integrated and global nature of food supply means that food security is releveant to both developed and developing countries.

Unity-in diversity and Sharing are the two emerging values that are at the basis of all MDGs. They reveal the key to further and accelerated progress by matching each milestone of each MDG with the choice people are asked to make: will we free the financial resources needed for these milestones by diverting them from the military expenditure? Very tangible examples would enhance the crucial importance and responsibility of each specific choice. For instance: how many schools can be established by converting the expenses for a battle aircraft into a program of education?

This approach of reiterating the choice and the relevant responsibility for its implications can gradually establish a constructive attitude on part of the public opinion based on a better understanding of the value of each choice - - in any field and for all MDGs. People's awareness of the huge financial resources that can be converted gradually from the military to development could well be at the basis of all MDGs' programs, thus projecting on each choice a tangible evidence of its relevant ripercussions. And each program of each MDG, with its accent on the responsibility of the choce connected to it, would contribute to the building of a critical mass that would increasingly make a difference and ignite a spontaneous evaluation of the choices that will have to be made in all fields.

In real sense of it all. The problems of artificial poverty created by the leadership platform must be addressed in various countries. Nigeria as a case study, people that do not have nothing on their table will not in any form contribute to the socio development of any nation in term of millennium development goals .They don’t even know these agenda .The government do not even go by these also in practical terms, So if the trend of bad governance should be addressed it will mark the trend of any good initiative effectively working in the life of several people in the world and that will also mark the trend of people working together for peace and harmony.

There are no real progress because scientific ecoligy has not been integrated inside development program. Market and business have dominated the vision of development. Now this is changing. But to achieve this goal it is important to transform the key human ressources challenges. using the right people at the right places. Biologist and there systemic vision and multidisciplinary skills have to be formed to manage social, market and agronomic works.

Botanical, zoological and ecosystem knowledge must have the first places, it is on this fundations that human nutrition could be securized. Agroecology is not agronomy, investment should take time into account, and human behaviour would be adapted to natural efficiency. So technology would be adapted to soil ecology, human and animal ressources , and richness of population.

Theme 2

Field size and property rights, peace, and cooperative organisation are the best way to manage self controled action on agroecological system wich are commons. the more actors you have the more controls are done, see water distribution in the alpine swiss countryside. The next 20 years land use could be a rush for the richer against the poorer(see corea, china ou saoudi arabia in africa) , protecting the farmer against investor with land rights, high prices and investment is the first goal, the next target is improving there knowledge.

Theme 3

From the rainy contries to the driest the goal couldn't be achieve in the same time,

- Number of biomass produced per acre /year

- liter of water used to produce 1 daily portion for 1 human

- amount of fertilizer, pesticides, and energy used per acre/year

- work force and work time needed for producing 1 ton of cereales/year

1. Challenge is how to influence or convince the different sectors or ministries of the government that food and nutrition security is the number one priority and we all must address it as a team! This is because every head of the sector or ministry always thinks his/her sector must receive highest prority.. etc. We need to get our policy right!

2. The capacity building is important but in many cases, candidates who go for training are usually not from implementing agencies or departments. For example, we need to focus ( capacity building) on our extension and health colleagues who are close to our farmers. We need to shift focus from policy/decision makers to field colleagues. They ( field colleagues) can make difference!

3. We must target awareness, education and advocacy on food and nutrition security at all levels: from politicians to farmers living in remote areas.

4. Food and nutrition insecurity issues are influnced by culture, and local governance/environment. FAO should not come up with precriptive meaures that fits for all!

Theme 2:

1. We must pay attention to sanitation and hygiene issues of our community while addressing Food and nutrition security. There is no point of addressing issues separately..( currently addressed by two or three ministries in many countries)

2. There is a need to study and understand local food customs to enrich or change old dietry habits.

3. Communities respond positively to new farming technology if access to market and access to inputs are improved.

4. Access to community postharvest facilities can make a big difference ( prevent from pest and diseases losses).

Theme 3:

1. First we must define our own national, sub-regional or regional targets using existing data from health, trade and agriculture.

2. Using these information, we can project global targets.

3. We also need to think how we can make our small farming more attractive and sustainable given that all cheap food ( subsidies provided by the developed countries) flooding the global markets!

I suggest that a key challenge for the post-2015 period is to ensure that there is closer integration of agricultural research and agricultural extension within the agronomy profession, and closer cooperation of both of these functions with small and marginal farmers and rural people themselves.

The aim of agronomic research and extension organisations ought to be transformed from the routine development and dissemination of 'technology packages' in a top-down manner, but working more collaboratively in support of farmers and field-level scientists and technicians (whether from agricultural universities, extension agencies or NGOs/CSOs) to help them analyse, prioritise and address agricultural problems and opportunities at local levels.

This would involve scientific and government agencies working with farmers and rural people in a much more responsive, demand-led, problem-oriented, horizontal manner; where problems are framed and priorities set in sincere collaboration with the people most affected by agricultural challenges.

A target for this proposal could be that x per cent of poor and marginal farmers have real access to/contact with scientific expertise. Possible indicators should not be in the form of inputs adopted or yields increased, but measures of simultaneously improved productivity (which is an input:output measure, not the same as gross production/yield) and sustainability.

The key challenges to food security include rising demand for food, climate change and rising demand for energy, water and land. All are a consequence of rising per capita consumption and population numbers. Only by limiting the rise in demand can be guarantee food security.

We should therefore encourage greater equity to allow the poorest to improve their consumption without increasing overall human impact on the environment. We should also provide universal access to rights based family planning and encourage female employment to reduce the birth rate in all countries to sub replacement levels.

In the first week of dialogue, already 22 Participants kicked off the consultation focusing on the lesson learned from the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals of relevance to hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition.
MDGs have been recognized for the role they played in bringing development problems to the attention of many. Participants also reminded us of extraordinary success that some countries had in realizing the goals and in increasing food security and nutrition among their citizens. However the same goal is still out of reach in many parts of the world.
MDG are meant be universal and are formulated in a very broad way making them difficult to enforce. Too often success is subject to the political will of national government to tackle food insecurity and malnutrition. Without buy-in by governments and by the population at large, even very active civil society organizations cannot manage to drive the change. The universal nature of the goals also constitutes a strong limitation as countries and regions can be very diverse and global or national goals risk becoming little more than a wish list.
According to the participants, in order to be successful , development objectives need to be linked closely to the local realities and need to be developed following a bottom up approach. For this to take place, awareness needs to be built among the general population starting in school and local professionals need to be put in the position to apply the acquired skills in their regional context.
As the central government often does not enjoy the full trust of the citizens it is important to involve civil society and grassroots organizations as much as possible, making the formulation of the development agenda respectful of the local peculiarities such as the environment and traditional agricultural practices.
Some participants also proposed a global food policy and more binding legal frameworks such as the creation of an expanded Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights or of a binding food treaty, which would create clearer obligation for the states.
Consensus emerged that hunger needs to be tackled in a comprehensive way including livelihoods, health, habits, infrastructure, education, gender equality, etc. and resources from all involved actors need to converge on a common practical plan of action.
Safety nets to mitigate shocks need to be put in place to increase the resilience of food insecure people and food should also be treated differently from other commodities and preferential trade arrangement could be put in place to increase access by the poor.
Participants also identified a decent infrastructure and safe storage facilities, which allow producers to efficiently access local markets with their produce as a condition for increasing food security .
Here national parliaments can play an important role by making sure that public policy measures aimed at rural developing and social protection find their way into national government budgets.
I take the occasion to thank all participants for their contributions and to renew my encouragement to further participate in the discussion.
In particular participants may wish to further address the following specific questions:
1. Considering that several comments highlighted how Malnutrition and Food insecurity should be addressed in a integrated and comprehensive way, which are the main challenges in enabling this approach to be enforced? How different stake-holders could and should contribute to this effort?
2. Which are the main lessons learned national levels to be used as a basis for building the future framework so that it fully reflects local realities and strengths?
3. How can we use current initiatives, including the Zero Hunger Challenge, launched by the UN Secretary General at the Rio+20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development (www.zerohungerchallenge.org), and the Global Strategic Framework for Food Security and Nutrition elaborated by the CFS ?
We look forward to receiving your contributions
Anna Rappazzo
WFP/FAO facilitators team

Current UN projections indicate that world population could increase by more than two billion people from today’s levels, reaching 9.15 billion by 2050. Incomes will grow even faster. To meet increased demand, FAO projects that global agricultural production and consumption in 2050 will be 60 percent higher than in 2005/07. This is a smaller increase than the agriculture sector has achieved over the past half century; but it still poses a main challenge in terms of how it can be achieved sustainably.

Population and income growth will spur demand, but significant parts of the world will approach saturation of per capita consumption levels. Demand will increase in both developed and developing countries, even where current levels appear adequate and additional growth may cause health concerns. This may happen even in countries where undernourishment remains significant. By 2050, some 52 percent of the world’s population may live in countries where average calorie intake is more than 3 000 kcal/person/day, but the total number undernourished is expected to be still 318 million or 4 percent of world population in 2050. Many countries will have to face a double burden, of under-nourishment and mal-nourishment.

How is production expected to respond to this demand-side picture and what are the opportunities to be leveraged on that side? More than 85 percent of the expected increase in production by 2050 may derive from improved yields. Higher yields and cropping intensity are economically preferable, given competition for land for other uses; and yield growth has been the mainstay of historic production increases. Spare land, instead, is often not readily accessible due to lack of infrastructure and is concentrated in a small number of countries. Water is another critical resource, that contributed much to past yield production growth. While water resources are globally abundant, they are extremely scarce in the Near East and North Africa, and in northern China, where they are most needed.

Yields increases can raise income from farming, provided that adequate signals are transmitted through markets; and that the policy and market environment in which farmers operate is conducive. At the same time, they need to be achieved with sustainable and climate-smart practices, to avoid increasing the pressure of agriculture on natural resources. In several regions of the world there is room to increase factor productivity and incomes from agriculture without exerting additional pressure on natural resources. Investment in research and extension, however, must pursue these objectives, probably with more efforts compared to what has happened over the last decades.

The Hunger, Food and Nutrition Security is a serious issues globally, somehow all this is related with poverty. Urgent action is required by both the Government and development partners, to ensure that immediate food security, combined with longer term growth in agricultural production, becomes critical and sustained prioritization. To overcome the challenges identified, the four key are of; agricultural production; trade and marketing; economic development; safety nets; and nutrition should become the focus of a comprehensive long term food security plan for all insecure population of the hunger. Eliminating hunger involves investments in agriculture, rural development, decent work, social protection and equality of opportunities. It makes a major contribution to peace and stability and to the reduction of poverty. It will contribute to better food, nutrition for all.

One of the key lessons learned during the current MDG framework, as it relates to hunger, food security and malnutrition is the fact that each country has its own capacities, constraints and challenges. Ending poverty requires setting ambitious targets in each country, but a “one size fits all” target is senseless when countries have vastly different starting points. With each country at a different point at the time of implementation, some countries were at the desired objective while to some it was impossible.

The goals were designed using a ‘Top down approach’ and hence the inputs of those directly affected by hunger and poverty were ignored.

Another lesson learned, especially in developing countries is that the measurements for the progress of the goals require extensive quantitative information which are, in some, cases unavailable and in others, inaccurate.

Future challenges:

If strict regulations are not in place regarding the quality of food produced, the expansion of food production may result in the use of harmful chemicals to enhance quantity produced.

Secondly, if countries are not careful of population growth, future food security and hunger reduction faces a tremendous challenge. This is so because if the population and food production are growing at the same rate, ceteris paribus, there will be no significant reduction in the number of people faced with hunger and malnutrition.

Thirdly, with alternative uses of food (as inputs to the manufacturing of other goods, for example fuel), this leaves less for consumption and hence the challenge to food security.

Recently, there has been much talk of labour mobility from agricultural sector to other sectors. This could be a positive move if the movement is merely the surplus labour in the agricultural sector. However, it is very likely that much needed labour is transferred to other sectors. It has been observed that this is largely due to the mentality that agriculture is somewhat a socially degrading occupation and fewer entrants to the labour force wish to be agriculturally involved /employed.

Future opportunities:

The vast literature on agricultural based countries indicates that those countries are less developed. With the growing demand for agricultural production, due to the MDG food security agreement will help develop those small agrarian countries. It provides them with comparative advantage and also provides them with a favorable trade balance.

Hello from Canada, I think that no one in the World should go hungry, if anything the UN should make sure that the hunger never happens also they should think of always making Food go to the Countries that are in need. The rich should be helping out the needs of hungry people.

WaterAid’s submission to the UN post-2015 thematic consultation on food and nutrition

WaterAid an international organisation working to transform lives by improving access to safe water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) in the world’s poorest communities. We work with partners in 27 countries in Africa, Asia, Central America and the Pacific region, and influence decision-makers to maximise our impact.

In addition to the contribution that WaterAid’s programmes make to the health and wellbeing of the communities in which we work, an important strand of WaterAid’s advocacy work is to promote the positive health impacts of access to WASH and highlight the importance of access to WASH in realising the Millennium Development Goals, particularly those relating to health
and nutrition. WaterAid contributes to the generation of evidence on the links between health and WASH through its research initiatives and partnerships.
WASH plays a fundamental role in improving nutritional outcomes. A successful global effort to tackle under-nutrition, in particular childhood under-nutrition, must therefore incorporate elements of WASH.

1. Links between WASH and under nutrition

Direct links: WHO estimates that 50% of malnutrition is associated with repeated diarrhoea or intestinal nematode infections as a result of unsafe water, inadequate sanitation or insufficient hygiene

Diarrhoea, largely caused by lack of water, sanitation and hygiene, is the second leading disease cause of death in children under-five globally, and its constant presence in low-income settings contributes significantly to under-nutrition.

Nematode infections such as soil-transmitted helminthiases, caused by lack ofsanitation and hygiene, affect around 2 billion people globally and can lead to diarrhoea, anaemia, protein loss and growth retardation.

Environmental (or tropical) enteropathy is a syndrome causing changes in the small intestine of individuals living in conditions lacking basic sanitary facilities and chronically exposed to faecal contamination. These changes to the intestine can lead to poor absorption of nutrients, stunting in children, and intestinal perforation.

Indirect links: The time taken to fetch water, and the cost of water purchased from vendors when it is not readily available in the home, impact on the amounts and quality of water consumed as well as on hygiene practices, which in turn impact on nutrition. Additionally, time spent sick with water-borne diseases or collecting water impedes educational attainment, which has a significant impact on health, well-being and poverty over a lifetime and potentially over multiple generations.

2. WASH and nutrition post-2015

Clear outcome goals are essential for generating the political will, accountability and resources needed to tackle global development issues. An outcome goal that clearly sets out the vision for reducing global under-nutrition should therefore form part of the post-2015 development framework. Moreover, we have seen that outcome goals alone are insufficient to put in place the measures needed to achieve them, or to address challenges of inequalities within and between countries, which require customisable and ambitious approaches. A goal on nutrition should therefore be accompanied by time-bound targets that mitigate the challenges that contribute to under-nutrition, including those linked to behaviour change and the realisation of
human rights. Given the considerable impact of WASH on nutritional outcomes, it is crucial that such targets include WASH aspects.

Although the current MDG framework includes a standalone target on drinking water and sanitation, its separation from the outcome goals on health, nutrition and education contributed to a fragmented approach to these goals, encouraging vertical approaches and discouraging integrated, cross-sectoral approaches that can deliver greater and more sustainable impact.
WaterAid believes it is essential that the current discussions on the post-2015 development framework address these challenges, and formulate a framework that results in long-lasting improvements in nutrition and health, and ultimately, in elimination of poverty and attainment of overall well being.

WaterAid believes that any post-2015 goals must better reflect the central importance of WASH to human health, education, welfare and economic productivity and ensure their interconnectedness is reflected.

WaterAid recommends that the post-2015 goal framework should:

Include a goal on universal access to basic water and sanitation services as a fundamental human right.

Specify a target date for achieving universal access to basic water and sanitation services by 2030.

Ensure WASH targets and indicators focus explicitly on reducing inequalities by targeting poor and disadvantaged groups as a first priority.

There is already a food security crisis in parts of the world, but with more people, less water and land and fewer inputs, we have to find a way to give the growing global population access to safe, nutritious and affordable food. There will be no one solution to the food security challenge. It demands a broad-spectrum approach, and microbiology has a key and central role to play in this. Food security is not just about increasing food productivity; it is also about wasting less. Furthermore, supplying safe, nutritious foods must be achieved in a sustainable manner with minimal impact on the environment and animal welfare.

Microorganisms (bacteria, fungi, viruses, protozoa, algae and archaea) and their activities are involved at every step of the food chain. Understanding the role of microbes at all steps in the process of plant and animal production, soil and water management, and harvesting, storage and processing of agricultural products is necessary. History records that microbiological research has delivered major advances in food security and safety. Important milestones include:

Identifying and applying of safe processes for food preservation, such as canning and pasteurization, and understanding the biology of pathogenic and spoilage microbes to reduce their transmission in the food chain, leading to developments of safer foods with a longer shelf life.

Exploiting antimicrobial substances produced by naturally occurring microbes as weapons against plant and animal pathogens.

Developing vaccines to improve the health of livestock and reduce transmission of animal pathogens to humans.

As a member of the People's Health Movement, I have for long been involved in the issues of the MDGs. We have praised the MDGs where due, but have also criticized it for its clear shortcomings.
I invite you to follow the attachment below and this link to look at the outlins of a class and a blog I wrote a short while ago on the topic of the MDGs. It is more important than ever to look at them critically so we do not fall into some of the same shortcomings post 2015.

What is food security? While I was following on October 29th the P.1.1. session on “National Food Security” of the Second Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development (GCARD 2012) which discusses Partnerships to Achieve Food and Nutrition Security, I was asked this question.

The definition of food security shifted in the past 50 years dramatically. The World Food Summit in 1996 gave a simple definition. It stated that “Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life”. This definition encompasses several widely accepted points related to food security such as food availability, food access, utilization and stability.

But, unfortunately, it does not give the right to a good food governance back to the stakeholders involved in the agri-food chain and the right to food security. The Right to Food is not a new concept, and was first recognized in the UN Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. In 1996, the formal adoption of the Right to Adequate Food marked a milestone achievement by World Food Summit delegates. It pointed the way towards the possibility of a rights based approach to food security.

Currently over 40 countries have the right to food enshrined in their constitution and FAO estimates that the right to food could be judicial in some 54 countries. In 2004, a set of voluntary guidelines supporting the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security were elaborated by an Intergovernmental Working Group under the auspices of the FAO Council.

But RIGHT TO FOOD ≠ RIGHT TO FOOD GOVERNANCE. As was mentioned several times during the discussions in different panels at GCARD 2012, a multi-stakeholder approach might represent the way through which food governance can be introduced. Representing a multi-regional approach to fighting global hunger, joining forces through a coalition building process, and giving the right to food governance to the agri-food chain stakeholders can be realized through the creation of a GLOBAL FOOD POLICY.

Coordinating at global level the efforts of fighting hunger, we can reduce the stress level that volatile food prices can bring on the world economy. World Bank President Robert Zoellick stated in February 2012 that “there is a real stress point that could have social and political implications”. With corporations and farmers’ organizations reaching out, United Nations system bodies and National governments working together on a single common goal, there is the possibility of creating a Global Food Policy that could encompass policy matters on both agricultural productivity and competitiveness, agricultural research for development (AR4D), food trade and food waste.

It moves toward an integrated systems approach, with instant inclusion of all stakeholders in the global, regional and national programs;

It does not affect sovereignty of countries, taking into account all national specificities and being implemented together with National governments;

It can better use all available resources at local, national, regional and global levels through the integration of the stakeholders and measures in a systems approach, while also moving away from the present “giving food aid” solution of solving the hunger issue;

It takes into account both the smallholder farmer, the corporations, the educational system and extension services as part of the solution for ending global hunger.

The question now is : Why should we NOT go for a Global approach to a Food Policy for ending hunger?

A.- I would like to propose a binding FOOD TREATY as a legal instrument to help reducing hunger to zero by the rule of law, increasing accountability, transparency and participation of those countries and their constituencies that are willing to do it. It would be a hard-law agreement amongst those who are really committed to end hunger (countries having food insecure people and countries willing to eradicate hunger from Earth). You can find below a list of links to the proposal and herewith attached a summary brief of main features and the rationale (to be read in 3 min).

C.- During 2009, the idea of a Food Treaty to fight hunger by the rule of law was developed and distributed to a wide group of practitioners in the food security and nutrition domains so as to get their reactions and the feasibility of the proposal. The proposal was even presented to the Committee on World Food Security and to high-profile developmental officers. But political timing seemed not to be adequate at that time. Now with the post-2012 debates heating up, it may be considered as a worthy idea. The strategic goal is to make it widely known and mature enough to become a serious possibility for the post-MDG talks. It might be the time of hard law agreements, as the soft ones have proven a failure to address global problems.

I would appreciate to have the proposal broadly discussed in the FSN forum, so as to get reactions from different constituencies and groups of interest (i.e feasibility, appropriateness, suggestions to proceed, etc).

4.- And, very recently, there has been a working document in a Spanish Think Tank were I have updated the previous version. Vivero, J.L. (2012). A binding Food Treaty: a post-MDG proposal worth exploring. OPEX memorandum n°173/2012. Fundación Alternativas, Madrid. http://www.falternativas.org/opex/documentos/memorandos/a-binding-food-treaty-a-post-mdg-proposal-worth-exploring In this paper, the rationale has been enriched to justify a Treaty and its most prominent features are highlighted. Additionally, a previous account of former binding Treaties and recent movements towards more hard treaties on Health and Climate Change are also presented.

I would like to exchanges ideas on the content, the way forward and the political options to become a proposal to be seriously considered. Furthermore, any suggestion on where, how and when it could be further disseminated would be highly appreciated.

Thanks for providing such platform. Here are few of my thoughts to address the issue.

The basic issues like health and malnutrition in Madhya Pradesh are summarized as

Follows:

The state has highest rate of infant mortality and malnutrition among children. Nearly 55 percent of all children below 3 years are under weight, 51 percent are stunted, 20 percent are wasted and 75 percent are anaemic.

Various reports of UNICEF state that out of every thousand live births 100 children die in the developing countries. Preventable diseases cause the deaths. Moreover, in M.P. a child dies every 5 minutes.

Proportion of children receiving immunization against all preventable diseases in the age group 12-24 months is only 22.4 percent.

Only 25 percent of children 6-35 months having received at least one dose of Vitamin 'A'.

Maternal mortality rate in the State, which is second highest in the country i.e. 379 per Lakh live births.

IMR is also highest at 72 per thousand live births.

One has to understand the fact that the high level of Maternal Mortality also contributes to the high level of Infant Mortality. Medium term health sector strategy for Madhya Pradesh-2006 has recognized the MMR at the rate of 400 per lakh but no projections has been made to reduce it by three quarters till 2015 in order to achieve the MDGs.

Some thoughts to address the issue of hunger/malnutrition

1. Community based integrated weighing mechanism for children
2.Effective educational materials to be given to mothers on Child's Health
3. Support the families to start home gardening to grow fruits and vegetables which helpful for the child's growth
4. Provide a Computer to the Centre to keep the records of all the children in the village. For this we should train a health volunteer to maintain this data base
5. We can also train Volunteers on Health and Hygiene of the Child and the mother
6. Each of these volunteers can be assigned number of families and they should have mobiles. If there is any issue for a child in their areas - sickness or any other issue, they should update the centre with a SMS, and the central data base will be updated.

I am working on a concept note for effective implementation of activities to address the issues of hunger/malnutrition, would be sharing on this platform soon.

Dr Aruna SharmaGovernment Official and practitioner Development Economist, India

24-11-2012

Theme 1: The MDG framework did remain a rhetoric to considerable extent. The number of children suffering from hunger and malnutrition have not shown decline in the desired ratio. The reason being:

Hunger is not not issue of only food avilability and health care but it is an issue that needs to be handled in Convergent manner inclusive of livelihood, habit formations, health care, right kind of food availability and focuced approach.Thus, the main challenge is to have effective format to bring out this Convergence of Resources and implementation outcome orianted plan.

Theme 2: As it is important to have only rights based approach, it is equally important to make a working holistic model. Many of the courtires having still high percentage of mal-nutrition or food related issues do not suffer from lack of food, having legislation or programs and schemes---the real issue is lack of resource convergent implementation plan focused and targeted, each is working in their silo. The strategy is therefore to have convergent plan to enhance livelihood of targeted families, IEC for awareness and habit change for healty life, health care and gaining access for food requirements. Such experiments have shown successful sustainable results.

Zero-hunger challenge initiative launched is the right way of approaching as it inbuilts zero tolerance to get sustainable outcomes of interventions. However, even sounding repeatative I will Insisit on swithover to Convergence approach for balance three years of MDG. In CFS the convergent model can be demonstrated.

Theme 3: To ensure achieving the listed set of objectives put forward by the UN Secretary-General under Zero Hunger Challenge (ZHC):

a. 100% access to adequate food all year round : It needs paradigm shift from 'having access' to 'gaining access'. To explain, the countries with high percentation of reported hunger and malnutrition do have enough food grain stocks, programs, schemes and legistation but it only ensures 'having the access' The challenge is how to we ensure that the target group do 'Gain access' so as to take advantage of the efforts of concerned Government, UN agencies and NGOs.

b. Zero stunted children less than 2 years old: It is not just a case of Medical Intervention but also need support system for ensuring enhancement in livlihood opportunities and access to systematic health interventions.

c. All food systems are sustainable: Food systems are sustainable challenge is to ensuer gaining access as explained at point a.

d. 100% increase in smallholder productivity and income : This is vital, to prescribe individual model to each beneficiary instead of sweeping schemes. IT is important that extension staff works as MDG doctor to give correct prescribtion for sustainable income.

e. Zero loss or waste of food: It is important to have zero tolerance on food loss and each country be made mandatory to have systems laid for warehousing and transportation to ensur the same.

I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER MY SERVICES TO DEVELOP THIS MODEL AS I FEEL PAINED THAT 2015 SHOULD NOT BECOME A RHETORIC AND CORRECT SYSTEMS ARE PUT IN PLACE IN THE COMING THREE YEARS

Bread for the World Institute’s 2013 Hunger Report, Within Reach – Global Development Goals, was recently released. The report argues that the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are within reach by 2015. With three years left before the goals are set to expire, now is the time to double down and focus on getting the job done.

In the report we highlight the good news—and there is plenty of it. In 2012, for example, we learned that the MDG poverty target has already been met. We’re not on track to meet the hunger target, but we are closer than we thought we’d be just a couple of years ago. To reach the hunger target, the share of the world’s population that is hungry would have to fall to 11.6 percent. At the current rate, we would expect 12.5 percent to be hungry in 2015.

The keys to achieving the 2015 targets depend on investments in smallholder agriculture and social protection. Most of the people in the world who are hungry are smallholder farmers. They may grow enough to feed themselves and their family but earn no more than $1.25 per day and in some cases much less. Poverty prevents them from diversifying their diets, investing in their children’s education, taking advantage of health care and other services. By providing smallholders with farm inputs such as seeds and fertilizer, preventing post-harvest losses by building basic storage facilities, or roads that allow them to gain access to a larger market, they can earn the additional income they need to improve their living conditions.

Social protection is another key piece of puzzle that we focus on in the Hunger Report. Social protection is a broad term but it basically means systems of support that allow vulnerable people to manage risks. Poor people are highly vulnerable to risk. No one is more exposed to the risks associated with climate change than a smallholder farmer. When poor families are better able to manage the risks in their life, we find they are more inclined to invest in their children’s development: sending them to school, for example, rather than to the fields.

There is a gender dimension to achieving the MDGs that we also discuss in the report. Women do the majority of farming in poor countries. By supporting smallholder farmers we are supporting women—and their children. We know that when assistance is provided directly to women more of it goes towards improvements that benefit the whole family.

Beyond 2015, the post-MDG agenda should include new development goals. Goal 1, once again, should be focused on hunger and poverty. The Hunger Report calls for the eradication of hunger and extreme poverty within a generation. As recently as a decade ago this may have sounded like a pipe dream. But not any longer. In light of the progress so many countries have made in recent decades, we’d be underestimating our own capacity by shooting for less. We don’t have to spend trillions of dollars or wait for scientific breakthroughs that have eluded us. The tools are already available, but we have to be willing to deploy them. Mostly it depends on a concerted and sustained push by government leaders and civil society organizations working together.

The U.S. government has a role to play in this and we highlight that in the report. U.S. government leadership won’t be the decisive factor in whether we meet the hunger goal by 2015 or eradicate hunger in a generation, but as the most generous donor of development assistance it can set an example for other donors and alert partners in developing countries that we intend to be reliable partners in the realization of these goals.

The lessons learnt are that for potential solutions to the food crisis to be realised, flagrant violations of all human rights, including the rights to food must be recognised and prevented, and that participation of all stakeholders – including vulnerable women, youth, indigenous people and other marginalised population groups – in the formulation, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of all development planning and programmes results in fairer access to means of production and better dividends for the poor from national economic growth.

Among the key lessons learnt from all available indices is that in a world that is richer than ever before and that already produces more than enough food to feed the global population, we need political solutions, rather than complicated technical solutions to get rid of hunger. The global food crisis has reinforced two issues about the future of agriculture: the first is that a growing world population, higher incomes and changes in diet are pushing up global demand for food faster than farmers can supply it, and the second is that throwing up new barriers to farm trade on this congested planet is not the path to solution. Getting rid of hunger should therefore not only be a question of finding resources and developing new technologies. It is also a question of challenging structural inequities, imbalances in gender relations and other socio-economic inequalities. The overarching premise of my argument is that an integrative rights-based approach is sine qua non to effectively curtail hunger.

The key lessons learnt is that not all planned systems can be implemented as planned due to either time lapse or need to change modalities. In our case, disability issues as well tend to hamper inclusive desires and often exclusive nurtured ways have to be combated or changed in order to have acceptable inclusive rights and opportunities targeted to beneficiaries; often what is desired and what is implemented do not have the same tune, the same time, and more or less those who fight to implement are not those who benefit. Changes take time and actors of change hardly are the real beneficiaries on the same being placed up for change.

MDG are a challenge that is taken up by governments only when they are well versed with the strategy and when actually it is tax payer money being used to build up on the goals with that of the development partners. This is when we realized that MDGs in themselves are a cross cutting issues depending each other for successful turnout. Making Hunger, Nutrition, Poverty, Illiteracy, Malnourishment, Meaningful agriculture rely on Education, Health, Agriculture, Social welfare to reach such goals. However, society and communities do not understand well these unless conformed in their specialized spheres of influence and often governmental channels are not looked with a kind face by the beneficiaries on the ground. These very cross cutting issues are for advanced minds and therefore total participation by all is limited to the many being led by a few giving gaps of corruptive elements taking their show on the same stage that otherwise would not have occurred if the beneficiary were literate enough to know their rights and opportunities within established laws and regulations.

A change of supervision in the programs causes changes that sometimes deter progressive elements and discourage continuance thus making initial investment measures redundant where manpower has to relocate in other spheres or work in other countries. Measurably is hard to pin investment returns as were viable enough nor sustainable as many programs have timelines that are not suitable for sustainability measures to be appreciated fully by all stakeholders. Government systems stag much on developing Management Information Systems MIS that often strategize earlier or later changes especially when financially squeezed or under financed. It is very hearty to note that nutrition efforts responses organizationally if civil society is given chance to be actors of change.

These past two years under the SUN movements guidance in Tanzania A partnership of Civil Organisations has been created to combat malnutrition that is called PANITA Partnership for Nutrition in Tanzania; many people now understand the basic core and what needs to be done easily via those they trust most on the ground, Civil Society and its organizations.

Government of India is in a process of enacting the National Food Security Act, as part of the efforts to eliminate hunger and food insecurity in India. But the main concern is that Government is strongly following a targeted approach; which means: a particular group of people will not be entitled for food security as per law; but a particular group called Primary Households (who are identified as poor) will be given subsidized food grain; where as another group called General Households will get smaller quantity of food grains at relatively higher prices. And rest will be leftout.
Please see the note attached.

Traditional Knowledge based agriculture and food and nutrition security in the Himalayan Region

This note looks into the traditional knowledge based agriculture and its relevance to enhance food and nutrition security in the Indian Himalayan Region (IHR). Traditional subsistence agriculture has been practiced in the IHR for the centuries, which carried enough food security and nutrition. There were many ethno-botanical plants – cultivated and wild, used as medicinal plants. Local health care system was dependent on this practice. This system was eco-friendly, obtaining high agro-biodiversity. In due course of time, as population increased tremendously and the impact of global changes fell on the traditional knowledge based cultivation of subsistence agriculture, the farmers of the region were more inclined towards cultivation of cash generating crops and largely for the cultivation of paddy and wheat. The entire shift in the cropping pattern and the reducing number of the farmers, which were engaged in the practice of traditional knowledge based agriculture, mostly on the valley regions and mid altitudes, the traditionally cultivated subsistence crops were no more in use in these areas.

Along with cultivation of paddy and wheat, chemical fertilizers were used largely to increase the production of crops. Until several years, it worked satisfactorily and supplied reasonable amount of food to the inhabitants but, this practice could not remain continue because, soil fertility started declined with increase in uses of chemical fertilizers. Meanwhile, the farmers also started cultivating various types of cash generating crops and fruits in different mountain niches. This practice too, did not earn any progress due to lack of market and transportation facilities.

Here, it is inevitable to discuss on the availability of cultivable land, upon which the further discussion will rely. The cultivable land in this region is below 12% of the total geographical area. Further, whatever the cultivable land is available; the landscape is steep and fragile and henceforth, soil erosion is high. The scope of extension of farmland on the mountain niche is too little. To feed the vast number of population, the present cultivable land and agricultural practices are not sufficient. Water resources are abundant but at the same time water availability for all purposes is less thus, water scarcity prevails everywhere.

Under such circumstances, what would be the possible measures to enhance food and nutritional security in this region are discussed below:

1. Agricultural practices are the main stay of the population and any practices other then agriculture and animal husbandry is just impossible because the slope and landscape do not permit to commence them.

2. Traditional knowledge based agriculture of subsistence crops should be retained for the two reasons: The first reason is its nutrition and medicinal values. Here, traditional subsistence crops can be grown in all climatic conditions and zones without requiring enough irrigation facility. Second, it is ecologically fit and obtains high agro-biodiversity.

3. About 75% of the geographical land is covered by vegetation where numbers of medicinal plants grow and many other non-timber forest products are found. These forest based products can be utilized largely for food security.

4. Along with subsistence agriculture, substantial cultivation of cash generating crops should be assured as the agro-climatic conditions in this region is considerably very suitable for cultivating them. This practice will also restore ecology and landscape and will prevent excessive soil erosion.

5. All above that the policy interventions for harnessing these niche based products more smoothly, are off course is the need of hours. Market facilities for selling medicinal plants and non timber forest products should be assured so that the farmers may enjoy the fruits of their hard work. There are instances when several times, farmers stopped cultivating medicinal plants only owing to non availability of market.

6. Irrigation is essential for rice and wheat crops, thus, water resource management, either through traditional wisdom or new technology, may enhance food productivity and thus food security.

With summing up, crop diversity is essential for food security in this region. This may be attended while opting the traditional wisdom as well as the current practices of agriculture.

In regard to the first theme of this consultation, there is an interesting document produced by the UN Task Team on the post 2015 development agenda with lessons learned from the overall MDG process. It summarises strengths and weaknesses - and provides useful lessons on how we can go about developing a better development agenda beyond 2015. It highlights the importance of a bottom-up approach, country-level consultations and the need to consider goals, targets and indicators that reflect continental, even country-level differences. It also recognises the importance of local conditions and the need to take into account the complexity of the development process.

These are all good points. The question is: how can these lessons help us do better in formulating the next longer term (25-year?) development agenda? The report does not say much about hunger, food security and nutrition issues. Hence, it would be good to hear from those of you working at country and regional levels on what are some of the specific lessons on this topic.

For example, to what extent has the hunger target under MDG1 been a useful instrument for achieving food and nutrition security objectives in your country or region? Are there other, more effective ways, of ensuring food security and nutrition concerns are brought to the top of the policy agenda? And, beyond policies and programmes, what will it take to make a real difference at household - or even individual - level?

Please find attached my contribution for discussion. I would like to understand why the challenges of childhood hunger and malnutrition are given less space while policies, especially in the context of growth, are being prioritized.

All three thematic areas are comprehensive but there are some general consideration which need to be addressed before compiling such a huge (expected) feedback from around the world.

i- All themes need to be specific with reference to geographical or economical or political system distribution. as the hunger, food and nutrition are generally linked with the economical and political condition/system.

ii- Goals (theme-3) would be more effective if the achievables are linked with time.

iii- FAO and WFP from the UN system organizations are the key player regarding the hunger, food and nutrition agenda. I would also request to include many other well-known actors in the world working on the same lines with huge experience and innovations.

On Theme 1b: The main challenges and opportunities towards achieving food and nutrition security in the coming years?

Here is my initial take:

There is need to limit this geograpgically. As an african, I would like to see this limited to Sub-Saharan Africa, because different broad geographical regions have specific challenges and opportunities, some of them being compromised by the leadership and the greedy elites and at times by the local population. If a people do not want development, what can be done by the international community?

A key element in ensuring food and nutritional security at national levels within SSA and later at regional level for SSA countries should take seriously the AU Maputo declaration that requires SSA countries to devote 10% of country GDP as Agriculture's budget. We all know what budgetting means on paper in some of these countries. Does this 10% quote mean "Effective Budget consumed" accounted for and outputs verifiable with objective indicators to be srcutinised by AU? What happens when the required budget level is not met? What can the AU do about such failures?

This brings me to the point that, whether at the level of the UN or AU or whatever regional or sub-regional grouping, policy dialogue to meet the challenges of Food insecurity and Malnutrition, in SSA countries remains a "revolving door". The soveriegnty of nations makes it difficult to ensure that this policy dialogue pays, paving the way for a better life for posterity --- the case of SSA. Every now and then there is an alarm of food insecurity and malnutrition, in most instances the situation is blamed on "Climate Change" , lack of "Contingency Plans" and Emergency Preparedness.

For humanitarian reasons it may be very difficult to accompany these lofty MDGs of the UN, or Goals of the AU-NEPAD with legally binding instruments to ensure their achievements. What can be done to a Government or Regime whose interest is to stay in power and specialise in "Crisis Management" : when food insecurity and malnutrition arise in the country, that will be recipe for attracting international aid and blindfold the electorate with handouts in order to eternalise the regime.

In all of the above, the Elite, Government and the Population must work together and sincerely with oversight provided by the UN or AU. The people would like to know the performance made in meeting the Challenges and Opoortunities, and real rewards given, accordingly.

I wish the process of creating awareness about food security and food wastage management should start at primary education level.

School children should understand what future is going to be for them with out food or agriculture.policies at government level should start focusing about advocating children on food security.

Like science or history, food chain management should start at primary education level in a bigger way.this can include climate change, food security, agriculture, sustainable development, malnutrition and so on.. all new world challenges can be put into a subject and educated.

Only children can make a new world.so educate the children about what past had,presents holds and future offers.

The objectives under theme 3 should be time-bound or else according to basics, they are not SMART (cf letter highlighted in italics). How then shall we make meaningful evaluation of them?
Thereafter being time-bound they may require fine-tunning.

This is a good opportunity and a wellcomed developement, we will do justice to it.

I am sending my congratultions for discussing food security and hunger free targets as key issues in millenium developement goals. We will also extray the level of poverty and pro poor developements in developing nations, and the negative growth indices.